[OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] The OSM licence: where we are, where we're going

[rob at robmyers.org]

Quoting Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>:

>> My idea is not that people should be forbidden from choosing free or
>> non-free products.
>
> But you do think that, if a free product was used as the basis of a
> better, but non-free product, people would then prefer the non-free
> product because they don't understand the benefits of the free
> product, leading to the eventual demise of the free product.

I am not concerned by whether people prefer it or not. I am concerned  
by how it affects each individual that uses it.

> This is
> what you call "removing the freedom" of the whole, is it not?

I am talking about people, not institutions.

> "Removing the freedom" only happens if the original, free version
> ceases to exist, and this would only happen if people lose interest
> in it, right?
>
> If people saw the value of the free product they would keep it alive
> and not switch to the non-free product even if the non-free product
> contained everything the free one has and more.

In abstract you are correct that the freedom of those who use the  
original instance will only be compromised if the original instance is  
destroyed or technological restrictions added to it. But in practice  
this has no bearing on the freedom of those who use other instances of  
it.

The platonic concept of the work is of little use to people that do  
not have access to the concrete reality of it.

> If people could be trusted to value the free alternative over the non-
> free, then PD would not be a threat.

I trust people to choose free over non-free *where that choice is  
possible*. Given the high value we both place on this choice, it is  
clearly wrong for it to be removed. Yet this is what PD allows. To  
argue that person A must have the choice to remove choice from persons  
B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L and M because otherwise we are saying  
that B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L and M cannot be trusted to choose  
does not make sense.

> But because you don't trust people and you fear that they will be
> blinded by the
>
>> shiny branded utility in the marketplace
>
> you'd prefer to keep the non-free product from using the free
> product's data.

If the non-free project does not think that people should be free to  
use its products and does not see value in this why does it not just  
use one of the existing high-quality proprietary products that can be  
licenced for a fee?

>> Copyleft ensures that this
>> practical value is available for all, PD allows it to be restricted
>> for others.
>
> The end user is still free in his choice whether to use the PD or the
> restricted variant.

Even where the restricted variant is the only one that can be used in  
a particular situation or context?

The non-free project is still free in their choice of whether to use  
existing proprietary data or not.

> You base your thinking on the assumption that the
> user will make the "wrong" choice, and thus you don't want to offer
> him the choice.

I do not. I base my thinking on the established fact that some people  
will remove choice from others where they believe there is an  
advantage to themselves in doing so if they are allowed to. In  
response to this I believe that copyleft is an acceptable, minimal use  
of coercion to prevent such coercion.

- Rob.